Responsibility Mafia!

On December 21 2011 05:00 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Hi everybody. Just finished exams, so it's time to start the game.

First thing's first, I'm not going to spend much time trying to guess specific role/game mechanics. Why? Because the set-up is closed, and there's no way to figure it out with no flips (Besides people claiming). Everything else is complete conjecture. The game seems like it's been designed to punish bad play though, so I'm just going to try to not play badly. Also, I think Mafia mechanics if they exist will be built around punishing bad play as well. So stuff like lurker-vigs, claim-vigs, maybe stuff like that, but I'm going to stop now.

If people want my general thoughts on possible game mechanics, then I'll post them.

Secondly, my thoughts on Chezinu. I'm not going to policy lynch him unless someone can prove he's done something worth lynching him for. There's two possibilities as far as lynching him goes, because I don't see him actually giving up information when pressured.

1) We policy lynch him, and waste all of day 1.
2) We don't lynch him, and as the game goes on, he'll either get shot, or give up more information about himself. (Whether he means to or not).

Basically, I don't feel like lynching anyone only because they're useless. I want to lynch someone because they're scummy. Maybe they're scummy and useless, but that's just incidental.

Chezinu has the ability to contribute to the town, and so he doesn't make a good policy lynch. What we have to look for is if he's still around later in the game, and then at how he's playing. I don't see him exerting too much influence on the town, so as long as people are aware of him, and deal with him later if he remains unreadable or noncontributory, then I think we're good.

Next, BC said he's going to post:
Hasn't done so yet, though. I'll give him time, but I think we should pay close attention to players who are lurking. I've had games with BC, Foolishness, and FW where they just lurked as mafia all the way until day 3 or later with minimal contribution to the thread. If a player refuses to help, or contribute, then we should shoot/lynch them before they can make it too far along in the game. This goes for everyone.

On August 24 2011 02:51 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
##Vote: Eiii Where you at?


Killing Eldricht would be nice to get rid of the third party, but it's not the biggest priority for town on Day 1, because it takes him a while to achieve his win condition. (Like at least 7 nights if greens aren't killed/lynched, unrealistic, I know, but just an example) As well, we have the psychologist who can cure insanity.

So, to talk about the set-up a little, do people think it would be a good idea for the psychologist to claim his target at the end of night 1? It makes the psychologist claim early, but that way if he dies, then we have probably found the Eldricht Horror. The only way this wouldn't be the case, would be if mafia shot him, but then he could just claim earlier. (Because mafia don't really want to shoot him right away without reason, as he keeps them from losing the game to insanity as well)

There's both Pro's and Con's to this, and it depends on the relative threat that we perceive the Eldricht Horror as.

Pros:

-Lets us catch the Eldricht Horror more easily, knowing as soon as the Psychologist dies.
-Let's us coordinate the Psychologist a little (don't know if this is necessary)

Cons:

-Mafia know not to shoot the Psychologist, reducing the pool of townies (1 person so not that terrible)
-Mafia can screw with town by killing the Psychologist and trying for a mislynch on his target.

Personally, I don't really think it's worth it after actually writing out the Pros and Cons, but I don't think I'm going to delete this post because I spent like 5 minutes writing it, and it provides a good start for actual discussion. In my opinion, a better option is actually having the psychologist bread-crumb his visits, so that way, if he ever dies and flips, then we have a list of players cleared of being the Eldricht Horror, and we have a possible target for who the Third Party actually is.

Discuss!

On December 21 2011 05:12 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Also, I found this curious, in one of the posts that the hydra made, specifically the bolded part, and I'm wondering what other people think about it.

GM just said that he wants to kill the hydra because he finds it hard to read. So, in defense, the hydra says what I quoted.

What I find interesting, is that he defends the use of the hydra by saying it's more beneficial for town than mafia. However, the choice to play as a hydra comes before the game even starts. So, he's trying to defend his being a hydra as being pro-town, when it was a decision that was made before alignments.

As well, why not attack GM's reasoning itself? He does this in part, but it's more that he says the contrary, when either case has a chance of being correct, and is terrible reasoning for keeping someone alive/lynching them anyways.

It's like if I said you're scum because your name is Tim, and instead of telling me how silly my argument is, you argue that your name being Tim makes you more likely to be town. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

What do people think about the fact that he's defending himself on the basis of a hydra being pro-town when the choice is made before he knows if he's town, and not arguing against GM's reasoning itself, but rather trying to spin himself as being easy to catch as scum?

This stuck out for me, and I'm curious as to what others think.

On December 21 2011 05:38 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I said that neither case is good as an argument for lynching someone, or for keeping someone alive.

GM's post wasn't a good reason to lynch someone. Curu's post wasn't a good reason to keep someone alive. I said neither were good reasons for anything.
Ok, that makes a bit more sense. I still have to ask, though, why do you even bother arguing that hydra's are better for town? GM doesn't say that "hydras are inherently worse for Town", he says that they're hard to read, with no reasoning. So, to counter-act that, you give your own argument with no reasoning that they are easy to read.

However, both arguments have the potential to be true, but neither of you provided enough explanation or evidence to support your claim. So, why bother even trying to say the opposite? Why not just say that GM's reason for voting you is bad (which it is), and explain why? Instead you try to spin it off that you'll be easy to read this game, which doesn't sit well with me. What's the motivation for doing so? That's what I'm wondering.

On December 21 2011 10:37 Mr. Wiggles wrote:

I can guess the reason for the first one, any particular reasons for the latter two statements?

About LSB:

Right now, I'm getting a null-vibe off him. He hasn't contributed too much to the game so far, besides talking about mechanics/general things. His posts on these seem decently reasoned, and I can follow the logic behind them. He's also questioning people a lot, which I see as pretty normal for such an early stage in the game. He hasn't made any definite posts in regards to his thoughts on other players, though. So, he's null to me, until he starts talking about other players and pushing his opinion in the thread.

Edit Before Posting: LSB posted some of his reads, so that makes me feel a little better about him.

So, I don't particularly agree with WBG's analysis of LSB.

Aren't these phrases contradictory? How can he be avoiding pissing people off when he's "making bullshit conclusions" out of their posts? That doesn't make much sense.

I'd also like to hear from Sheth, He hasn't really done anything but come in, quote me, and say: "I agree". What are your thoughts?

On December 24 2011 04:32 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I considered that scenario likely for a few reasons:

1) If GM is scum, then he can't actually shoot. So, he's forced to either claim RB or that his target was scum and protected.

2) If GM was a Townie, and was telling the truth, then there's a good chance of Mafia RBing him to cause confusion. It would look the same as in case 1.

3) There's the possibility mafia have a medic. A mafia medic is only ever going to be protecting one of their own members on night 1, barring very odd circumstances. So, if GM had good aim, was town, but shot a protected scum, it would again look like case 1.

I didn't need a list of blues to be able to tell that there was a pretty decent chance GM's shot wasn't going through. If he's scum, it's not going through for sure, and if he's town, then it's not going through if he gets RBed or shoots protected scum. Based on how he had been acting, I thought he was likely to be scum, and then we'd fall into case 1.

When I said someone there, I was referring specifically to LSB and GM. I was asking what people wanted to do, because a lot of the time, people just let claimed RBed fake-claims live night after night. What I wanted, was to threaten GM with lynch if he claimed his shot didn't go through, and follow through on it, unless he actually gave us a very credible case for why someone else was scum, or some other kind of significant contribution.

So, that post had nothing to do with if other people claim RB or not, just the claimed vigs. The reasons for RoL living right now, are as follows:

1) He was medic protected:

Verdict: Unlikely, but possible

While in a normal game, this might make sense, as he is considered a good vet, I don't see a good reason for it in this game. He had only one or two posts, with little content in them. He wasn't likely to be shot, and then if protected on the principle of being a vet, there are other players who fit that bill too, being Foolishness, BC, and L, and they were all more active and easier to get a read on than RoL.

2) GM was roleblocked:

Verdict: Likely

Like I wrote above, mafia would do this to cause confusion and make it look the same as if GM was scum.

3) GM shot someone else:

Verdict: Possible

I don't really see a reason for it, and like others have said, if he did, he bread-crumbed it in his list of reads. However, I don't really see the point in fake-claiming your shot after the deadline. What's the point? However, a lot of GM's other play didn't make sense to me, so maybe he did this, too. -_-

4) RoL is a Vet:

Verdict: RoL didn't claim taking a hit, so no.

So, right now, I think that we should treat RoL the same as any other player. I don't see a reason why GM's claimed shot on RoL should make a difference in how we treat RoL. RoL's failure to die, doesn't say much about his alignment, as we are unsure of who hit who, and if GM was possibly RBed. Instead, we just look at his posts, and pressure him to post, like any other player in this game.